Manikonda jagir lands are government lands: SC

SC sets aside HC orders, quashes notification issued by the Wakf Board

February 07, 2022 09:45 pm | Updated February 08, 2022 07:55 am IST - Hyderabad

Supreme Court of India. File.

Supreme Court of India. File.

The Supreme Court on Monday had set aside the orders of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the Telangana government with regard to Manikonda village jagir comprising prime land of 1,654 acres of land.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian pronounced the verdict, allowing the civil appeals filed by Telangana State. Along with Telangana government, others like Lanco Hills, Emaar Properties and Indian School of Business, who were allotted lands by the government, filed these appeals.

The apex court’s division bench quashed the Errata notification issued by the Wakf Board on March 13, 2006. The bench made it clear that the 1,654 acres and 32 guntas of land belongs to the State government and is free from any encumbrance. The arrears due to the Dargah of Hazrat Hussain Shah Wali should be calculated and paid within six months, the bench said.

The appeals filed on behalf of the alleged tenants or pattadars under Manikonda jagirdar were at liberty to approach the appropriate forum seeking remedy for redressal of their grievances, the judgement said. The bench observed that the HC erred in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to relegate the parties to the statutory remedy.

The bench said that the publication of a notification in Official Gazette by Wakf Board about Manikonda village jagir lands was not binding on the State government. The publication of a notice in an Official Gazette has a presumption of knowledge to the general public as an advertisement published in a newspaper, the bench noted.

Wakf Bard has power to determine the nature of the property as wakf but it had to comply with the procedures like conducting an inquiry providing an opportunity of hearing to other parties. Mere issuing notice did not mean that the person to whom notice issued did not require to be heard, the judgement said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.